FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL
Real. Educational. News.
Fort Fairfield Journal About Us Contact Us Advertising Rates Subscribe Distribution Bible Reference Our Library
A Vision for Fort Fairfield:
Declare Itself Off Limits to Federal Income Tax
Editorial by David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher, FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL, January 27, 2010
My wife and I recently attended the Vision for Fort Fairfield’s Future meeting held at the High School.
The event was basically a brainstorming session on what direction to take Fort Fairfield in the future to increase our population and economic base in a way that is positive for the community.
Since it was just an initial brainstorming session, ideas were simply spelled out as short phrases or attributes and posted on the wall, to be used as guidance for a future mission statement that would gel all of those ideas together.
Town manager, Dan Foster opened the meeting suggesting what we should be striving for first is to create a community that would attract highly motivated, positive, goal-oriented people, then the rest would follow.
I believe that is a good idea and would like to propose my suggestion on how to make that happen as expeditiously as possible. Since the theme of the planning meeting was: "there’s no stupid idea," please bear with me as I explain my position as follows:
Fort Fairfield should declare the town off-limits to all federal legislation, specifically the federal income tax. A police force should be formed to protect all inhabitants from the unlawful collections of the income tax and any federal agent, Marshall, bureaucrat, etc. who trespasses inside of Fort Fairfield would subsequently be arrested and tried for violation of the law.
What law? You might be asking. I say the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, that’s what law.
You see, if Fort Fairfield told the feds they are no longer allowed to collect their federal income tax in Fort Fairfield, we would not be in violation of any law, in fact we would be upholding the law that prohibits them from exercising their jurisdiction outside of those areas specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution.
Since most of you attended public school and thus were never taught what the U.S. Constitution said, please allow me to educate you as to what that body of law says about federal jurisdiction. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 says;
“The Congress shall have the power to...exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings...”
Translated in simple terms, the federal government only has the power over the District of Columbia (the capitol), military bases, naval ports, federal buildings and any national parks where they have actually purchased and own the land. Nowhere in that body of law does the town of Fort Fairfield, or any other town within the several states, exist as an area under federal jurisdiction.
Title 26 of the U.S. Code, also known as the Internal Revenue Code agrees with this limited jurisdiction by allowing the Federal Income Tax to only be collected in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Guam (those places being federal territories and possessions owned by the Federal government), none of the fifty States, also known in U.S. law as “the several States,” are mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code as areas where the tax can be legally collected or enforced.
So, you see by disallowing the Feds from collecting their income tax in Fort Fairfield, we would actually be upholding the law, not violating it.
I’ll bet you’re wondering what type of people that would attract to Fort Fairfield. I submit those who make enough money to have to pay enough income tax that it would be worth their while to move to Fort Fairfield would be the highly motivated, positive, goal oriented, productive members of society that all of us would surely like to see move here. Unproductive people, gangs, criminals, etc. do not pay income tax anyway, so they wouldn’t have a vested interest in moving here, only those who have something to lose.
In addition to upholding the law, our town officials would also be honoring their oath of office, since each of them swears, or affirms, an oath to uphold the Constitution as a requirement to hold their office.
As for enforcement of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, we would need at least a 1,000 member well-armed police force. I know our community is only around 3,600 and mostly elderly, but if the town council were to pass such a declaration to uphold the Constitution and prohibit the collection of federal income tax, we would soon have more than enough people moving to town to staff that police force, most of whom would surely and gladly volunteer several hours out of their day to serve on that police force to protect themselves and their neighbors from any violations of the law we should have been upholding all along, anyway.
That’s my suggestion; vigorously enforce the Constitution, protect the inhabitants in Fort Fairfield from encroachments by the Feds and make room for the thousands of motivated, goal oriented people and businesses who will be beating a path to our doorstep.
Remember, there are no stupid ideas.
For Part II of this editorial, which further explains jurisdiction, click here
David Deschesne was interviewed on the Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show
regarding this editorial. Go to www.katherinealbrecht.com and
check out the February 3, 2010 hour 2 show in the show archives.